Italy ending Child Support and redefining divorce laws

[Anonymous]

I think the problem is more with the alimony, not the child support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe in equal share custody. No such thing.

How so? Court-appointed split of calendar year or intervals of time shared. Seems pretty simple to implement. Also gives both parents a chance to see their children.

I'm divorced and ex-DH and I get along and coparent well. The kid definitely would not like a 50/50 split of time. DH's job is much more inflexible than mine and he works a lot and travels on a regular basis for work. There are also circumstances where both parents can't afford housing in the same neighborhood due to income disparity, which could mean each home is zoned for different schools. I have a bigger home and do the bulk of the after school activities because my house is the base and we don't live right next door to each other. He pays child support. Having that one size fits all policy isn't a good idea. I'm all for that as the starting point, but you have to take into consideration the individual circumstances. My good friend's husband is a consultant who is gone during the week and is home on the weekend. How would the no child support/equal custody rule work there? I would be fine with the equal custody/no child support if we lived in the same neighborhood so we had the same school zone, and if ex-DH had a job where he was home on a regular basis. That just isn't the case.

I agree it should be the starting point. In your case if your ex has no interest in seeing the kids more than he does, then you have the right arrangement. If both parents agree that the arrangement works best for their lives and the kids then I doubt Italy is going to force 50/50

Right. I think it should be a choice.

A) If each parent is eager for custody - split it and organize it 50/50 with no to minimal child support. Each one takes care of their own household.

B) If one parent only wants holidays and a month every summer - then split it 70/30 with according child support raised for extra expenditures.

It would be unfair that one parent gets all the holidays and a relaxed month in the summer while the other runs around doing all of the grunt work of doctor spots, homework, carpool, sports practices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe in equal share custody. No such thing.

How so? Court-appointed split of calendar year or intervals of time shared. Seems pretty simple to implement. Also gives both parents a chance to see their children.

I'm divorced and ex-DH and I get along and coparent well. The kid definitely would not like a 50/50 split of time. DH's job is much more inflexible than mine and he works a lot and travels on a regular basis for work. There are also circumstances where both parents can't afford housing in the same neighborhood due to income disparity, which could mean each home is zoned for different schools. I have a bigger home and do the bulk of the after school activities because my house is the base and we don't live right next door to each other. He pays child support. Having that one size fits all policy isn't a good idea. I'm all for that as the starting point, but you have to take into consideration the individual circumstances. My good friend's husband is a consultant who is gone during the week and is home on the weekend. How would the no child support/equal custody rule work there? I would be fine with the equal custody/no child support if we lived in the same neighborhood so we had the same school zone, and if ex-DH had a job where he was home on a regular basis. That just isn't the case.

As long as one parent/guardian is present in a residence in the school district and the child is there 50% of the time, it doesn’t matter if one or both has homes in-boundary. It just means the child’s commute will be longer with one parent over the other.

It matters because, let's say you have two or three kids, if the parents live in the same school zone you can get them to and from school quite easily if they each go to a different school because they can just take the bus from either house. If you live in different school zones and one parent has to drive them all to school (often time multiple schools because of age differences) and pick them up and still have a job, it would be logically challenging. I think the reason the 50/50 split isn't more common is because it doesn't work well logistically with two working parents who don't live in the same school zone. It's not because one parent doesn't want their kids for the 50 percent. You can't just impose rules that theoretically seem fine, but don't work for the families impacted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe in equal share custody. No such thing.

How so? Court-appointed split of calendar year or intervals of time shared. Seems pretty simple to implement. Also gives both parents a chance to see their children.

I'm divorced and ex-DH and I get along and coparent well. The kid definitely would not like a 50/50 split of time. DH's job is much more inflexible than mine and he works a lot and travels on a regular basis for work. There are also circumstances where both parents can't afford housing in the same neighborhood due to income disparity, which could mean each home is zoned for different schools. I have a bigger home and do the bulk of the after school activities because my house is the base and we don't live right next door to each other. He pays child support. Having that one size fits all policy isn't a good idea. I'm all for that as the starting point, but you have to take into consideration the individual circumstances. My good friend's husband is a consultant who is gone during the week and is home on the weekend. How would the no child support/equal custody rule work there? I would be fine with the equal custody/no child support if we lived in the same neighborhood so we had the same school zone, and if ex-DH had a job where he was home on a regular basis. That just isn't the case.

As long as one parent/guardian is present in a residence in the school district and the child is there 50% of the time, it doesn’t matter if one or both has homes in-boundary. It just means the child’s commute will be longer with one parent over the other.

So what happens Giancarlo decides to move away from Torino with his mistress to a new flat in Genoa?
THis law is about old dudes.

Don’t be so obtuse. There is a way to split the school year - all summer, breaks, etc. where if it isn’t exactly EQUAL time, it’s equitable based on the circumstance (I.e. the parent who decided to move away might get less time). But at least the presumption of equality is there.

Yep - there’s a way to be certain Giancarlo isn’t too inconvenienced. Ex can handle the school year heavy lifting and Little Sophia can come visit the Riviera in the summer...

Okay. I don’t know what you want to hear. I guess you are intent on assuming the man is the bad spouse/parent in all situations. Typical DCUM!

The point is why say no child support if there are many circumstances where one parent will be doing the heavy lifting for most of the time. And I most certainly think child support should go both ways. If the dad is the one doing the heavy lifting, then he should get child support. The point is why have a rule that there is no child support at all. They aren't saying there is a presumption of equality, but there is child support if the parties prove otherwise, they are saying the rule is no child support and 50/50 period, even if that's not the reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe in equal share custody. No such thing.

How so? Court-appointed split of calendar year or intervals of time shared. Seems pretty simple to implement. Also gives both parents a chance to see their children.

I'm divorced and ex-DH and I get along and coparent well. The kid definitely would not like a 50/50 split of time. DH's job is much more inflexible than mine and he works a lot and travels on a regular basis for work. There are also circumstances where both parents can't afford housing in the same neighborhood due to income disparity, which could mean each home is zoned for different schools. I have a bigger home and do the bulk of the after school activities because my house is the base and we don't live right next door to each other. He pays child support. Having that one size fits all policy isn't a good idea. I'm all for that as the starting point, but you have to take into consideration the individual circumstances. My good friend's husband is a consultant who is gone during the week and is home on the weekend. How would the no child support/equal custody rule work there? I would be fine with the equal custody/no child support if we lived in the same neighborhood so we had the same school zone, and if ex-DH had a job where he was home on a regular basis. That just isn't the case.

I agree it should be the starting point. In your case if your ex has no interest in seeing the kids more than he does, then you have the right arrangement. If both parents agree that the arrangement works best for their lives and the kids then I doubt Italy is going to force 50/50

But why not say the presumption is 50/50 no child support, but if one parent doesn't take care of the child 50/50, the other will be entitled to child support. This makes it easier for the parent who isn't the delinquent one to get support than a rule that just says no child support/50 with no provision for recourse if one parent doesn't live up to the 50/50. That actually just disadvantages the kids. It's quite reasonable to make 50/50 the starting point, but don't set up a system where violators aren't easily held accountable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe in equal share custody. No such thing.

How so? Court-appointed split of calendar year or intervals of time shared. Seems pretty simple to implement. Also gives both parents a chance to see their children.

I'm divorced and ex-DH and I get along and coparent well. The kid definitely would not like a 50/50 split of time. DH's job is much more inflexible than mine and he works a lot and travels on a regular basis for work. There are also circumstances where both parents can't afford housing in the same neighborhood due to income disparity, which could mean each home is zoned for different schools. I have a bigger home and do the bulk of the after school activities because my house is the base and we don't live right next door to each other. He pays child support. Having that one size fits all policy isn't a good idea. I'm all for that as the starting point, but you have to take into consideration the individual circumstances. My good friend's husband is a consultant who is gone during the week and is home on the weekend. How would the no child support/equal custody rule work there? I would be fine with the equal custody/no child support if we lived in the same neighborhood so we had the same school zone, and if ex-DH had a job where he was home on a regular basis. That just isn't the case.

As long as one parent/guardian is present in a residence in the school district and the child is there 50% of the time, it doesn’t matter if one or both has homes in-boundary. It just means the child’s commute will be longer with one parent over the other.

So what happens Giancarlo decides to move away from Torino with his mistress to a new flat in Genoa?
THis law is about old dudes.

Don’t be so obtuse. There is a way to split the school year - all summer, breaks, etc. where if it isn’t exactly EQUAL time, it’s equitable based on the circumstance (I.e. the parent who decided to move away might get less time). But at least the presumption of equality is there.

Yep - there’s a way to be certain Giancarlo isn’t too inconvenienced. Ex can handle the school year heavy lifting and Little Sophia can come visit the Riviera in the summer...

Okay. I don’t know what you want to hear. I guess you are intent on assuming the man is the bad spouse/parent in all situations. Typical DCUM!

The point is why say no child support if there are many circumstances where one parent will be doing the heavy lifting for most of the time. And I most certainly think child support should go both ways. If the dad is the one doing the heavy lifting, then he should get child support. The point is why have a rule that there is no child support at all. They aren't saying there is a presumption of equality, but there is child support if the parties prove otherwise, they are saying the rule is no child support and 50/50 period, even if that's not the reality.

The article says that if one parent “can’t afford” expenses the wealthier parent will pay for costs directly.

Besides, unless anyone commenting here is from Italy, we don’t know what the reality is there. We’re looking at this through a U.S. prism and so it’s not necessarily fair to knock them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe in equal share custody. No such thing.

How so? Court-appointed split of calendar year or intervals of time shared. Seems pretty simple to implement. Also gives both parents a chance to see their children.

I don’t think it’s in the best interests of the kids.

+1

Children belong with their mother. Period.

XH's can be responsible fathers by paying on time. That's all that's needed from them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

+1

Children belong with their mother. Period

XH's can be responsible fathers by paying on time. That's all that's needed from them.

Pffft.

I live in the same school district with ex precisely because our child needs equal access to both parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1

Children belong with their mother. Period

XH's can be responsible fathers by paying on time. That's all that's needed from them.

Pffft.

I live in the same school district with ex precisely because our child needs equal access to both parents.

Glad for you. Not everyone has a former spouse willing to live nearby. My ex was not. One summer, he moved 30 min away to live with his then-fiancée. When the fall rolled around he whined to the court about his difficulty getting to work on time after dropping DC off at school. Wanted me to pay for a private school in between our houses since I was already paying for the private between his former home and mine. I pointed out to the judge that the private my ex wanted only went up to fifth grade and would more than double the amount of time DC spent in car the 20 days a month not with Dad. Judge agreed with me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe in equal share custody. No such thing.

How so? Court-appointed split of calendar year or intervals of time shared. Seems pretty simple to implement. Also gives both parents a chance to see their children.

I don’t think it’s in the best interests of the kids.

+1

Children belong with their mother. Period.

XH's can be responsible fathers by paying on time. That's all that's needed from them.

. Holy shit! Please tell me you don’t actually believe this. I know plenty of men who are better parents than their wives. The male hatred in our society is out of control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe in equal share custody. No such thing.

How so? Court-appointed split of calendar year or intervals of time shared. Seems pretty simple to implement. Also gives both parents a chance to see their children.

Being split into two homes like that can't be good for the children.

[Anonymous]

Didn’t some spouse literally just murder her own children from that stress of being forced to move with the ex husband?
Extreme circumstance I know, but still...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe in equal share custody. No such thing.

How so? Court-appointed split of calendar year or intervals of time shared. Seems pretty simple to implement. Also gives both parents a chance to see their children.

Being split into two homes like that can't be good for the children.

You’re making generic comments with nothing to back it up. I could being forced into a blended family with multiple stepparents isn’t good for the child either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe in equal share custody. No such thing.

How so? Court-appointed split of calendar year or intervals of time shared. Seems pretty simple to implement. Also gives both parents a chance to see their children.

Being split into two homes like that can't be good for the children.

You’re making generic comments with nothing to back it up. I could being forced into a blended family with multiple stepparents isn’t good for the child either.

They can be equally bad. Plenty of room for shitty solutions.

[Anonymous]

Italian women are largely not having kids anyhow. Who this will impact most is the poorer immigrant population and I suspect this will mostly hurt women and kids who are already vulnerable.